On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 07:16:21PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > > But even REPLACE requires predicate locking. There's no real way to get
> > > around it.
> >
> > The point though is that REPLACE is restricted to a type of predicate
> > narrow enough to be enforced through a unique-index mechanism, and so
> > it's implementable without solving the general case of predicate
> > locking.
> >
> > Predicate locking for narrow cases isn't very hard; it's the general
> > case of arbitrary predicates that's hard.
>
> My feeling is we should implement MERGE for the limited cases we can,
> and throw an error for cases we can not (or require table locking), and
> then see what reports we get from users.
We should probably throw a notice or warning if we go to a table lock,
too.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
